Talk:McGillin's Olde Ale House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Philadelphia
Philadelphia Portal
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Did You Know An entry from McGillin's Olde Ale House appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 November 2006.
Wikipedia

[edit] Revenue

Are we certain of that revenue? Do we have a source for that? I wasn't even aware that McGillin's Revenue was open to the public. --Coplan 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have removed the reference to the annual revenue from the info block. Revenue information should not be displayed for privately owned companies. The revenue category should be reserved for use only with publicly traded companies. --Coplan 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

The article was referenced. Could it be better? Sure. Let's work on that rather than slapping an unreferenced tag on it. --evrik (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are zero verifiable sources on the page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit more accurate. This is not a reliable source. I haven't yanked it yet. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Coplan's interview was published on his blog which has now gone 404. There are a lot of news articles here. --evrik (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that the interview was not, at some point, on someone's blog or that there aren't articles about the place. I'm saying that citing an interview by an editor is not WP:V and that the article does not cite verifiable sources for a whole boatload of info. Saying I should improve the article rather than tag its problems misses the point that the tags exist for a reason: I saw the problems but don't have the time to fix them myself at the moment -- even less so, when I have to continually re-tag the same article for the same problems.
Mdbrownmsw (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This is unverifiable original research: ^ a b c d e Interview conducted by User:Coplan via e-mail of Chris Mullins, Owner and Operator of McGillin's. November 9 through November 14th, 2006.. luminosity.antisoc.net (December 31, 2006). Retrieved on 11-21, 2006.[1]

If you disagree, please explain. Otherwise, I will remove it tomorrow WP:BRD Mdbrownmsw (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree. It was published by Coplan (if I remember correctly). Its not original research to publish something as simple as the facts stated here. It should stay. --evrik (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"If you remember correctly" is not verifiable. "...by Coplan" is original research. "...as simple as the facts..." is, gulp, most of the article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If there were a violation of NPOV policy or guidelines on conflict of interest I would share your concern, but Wikipedia:OR it is permissable for an editor to use a primary source. There is no new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions being advanced. The things you seem to object to are simple facts. --evrik (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This "source" that you think you might kinda remember was sorta maybe published in another editor's blog is original research: "unpublished facts".
For fun, let's pretend we do find a copy of this blog posting. Now what? Now we would have an unacceptable source.
Oh, but it's a "primary sources". Great! What reliable source is it published in, I'd like to verify it? "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."
But there is "no new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions"? But there are direct quotes (with POV): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
I'm just objecting to "simple facts"? First, keep in mind that until recently this article was based entirely on that one, unpublished, unverifiable, unreliable source. Even the notability of the place was unestablished. The article on Palumbo hit AfD within 10 minutes of its creation because it had no sources (I built it live, rather than in a sandbox). Next, until your most recent edit, all but the barest facts (location, age and some of the signs) was supported by that same unpublished, unverifiable, unreliable source.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. The article closely parallels, McGillin's Olde Ale House website. mcgillins.com. Retrieved on 12-13, 2007.. The interview was done to lessen the copyvio factor. I can't speak for Palumbos, but I could see why it might have been tagged from the outset. --evrik (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can see why Palumbos would have been tagged, but I said "Palumbo" (you changed it to Palumbos). Frank Palumbo hit AfD with cites to a blog, a Penn paper, a Philly Weekly article and "Larry Kane's Philadelphia".
I asked for sources for this article when its only source was an unpublished, unverifiable interview by another editor. I don't care why it was so very poorly sourced, only that it was. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • When I look at the history for Palumbo, I don't actually see where a {{prod}} was added. In any case, these articles are separate. This article is fine for now, unless you have other problems with it? --evrik (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Assuming the new cites actually support the material, it should be OK. I haven't really dug into it yet. You'll see it on your watchlist if I have any issues and I'll drop you a note on your talk if it's within the next few days. (Re Frank Palumbo: I got the warning on my talk page immediately after adding additional refs. Discussion with the editor adding prod/AfD/whatever sorted it out shortly thereafter. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)